Robles v. United States of America
Filing
10
ORDER Denying Motion For Reconsideration and Associated Requests re 9 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/23/2024. (cib)COURTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First C lass Mail to the addresses of record listed on the (NEF). Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Litigants that have consented to receive documents and Notices of Electronic Filings by email, have been served electronically at the e-mail address listed on the (NEF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TIMOTHY JON ROBLES,
)
)
)
Defendant.
_____________________________ )
CIVIL NO. 24-00321-SOM-KJM
CRIMINAL NO. 98-00456-SOM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
ASSOCIATED REQUESTS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS
Petitioner Timothy Robles moves for reconsideration of
the order denying his motion for a writ of coram nobis.
His
reconsideration motion is accompanied by requests that this court
transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Washington for
clarification, take judicial notice, appoint counsel, and require
the Government to respond and produce relevant documents.
The
court denies the reconsideration motion and all the other
requests.
The court notes that it is unclear whether Robles used
the prison mail system to submit his moving papers.
refer only to the use of “United States mail.”
His papers
If he did not use
a prison mail system, his motions are untimely, not having been
submitted within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment in this
case, as required by either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If he did use the prison mail
system, his motions are timely if they were placed in that mail
system within the twenty-eight period.
The court assumes for
purposes of this order that Robles used his prison mail system.
The reconsideration motion evidences palpable
frustration but offers no new evidence and no newly persuasive
analysis or legal authority.
Robles rehashes prior arguments and
expresses vehement disagreement with the order denying coram
nobis relief.
This is insufficient to warrant reconsideration.
For example, Robles continues to misunderstand actual
innocence.
To establish actual innocence, he would need to show
that he did not commit the crimes he was charged with.
Far from
showing that, Robles contends that his sentence was erroneous.
An allegedly erroneous sentence does not render one actually
innocent, no matter how many times Robles conflates the concepts.
One could theoretically be guilty but still have been
missentenced, and the sentence would not render one actually
innocent.
In so stating, this court is not, of course,
announcing any conclusion that Robles was missentenced.
This
court is instead attempting to illustrate the difference between
concepts that Robles mistakenly views as synonymous.
This court sees no reason to reiterate its reasons for
denying relief.
The court instead rests on its earlier order.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 23, 2024.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge
United States v. Robles; CIVIL NO. 24-00321 SOM-KJM, CRIMINAL NO. 98-O00456 SOM; ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?